Well access to this spot wouldn't be a problem if the 1970 OKI Rapid Transit plan had been built...this was the MARTA-era rapid transit plan we didn't build because Tom Luken built a political career attacking the public takeover of Cincinnati Transit, then extended his career attacking newly-formed Metro and called for the abolishment of OKI.  So if we had actually had a tax in place we could have gotten the federal funds through UMTA 1970 to build what OKI planned -- a true rapid transit system with a continuous subway tunnel from Clifton to Covington and a branch under the Licking River to what is now the "Ovation" site. 

This is also a West End rendering

 

The Enquirer's crack reporting ignores that this rendering exists and that they published it yesterday...

 

Looking at Newport as FC Cincinnati's potential future home

 

Newport is emerging as Futbol Club Cincinnati's best option for building a stadium, a fact that became more clear Monday night when the burgeoning franchise unveiled the design of a $200 million soccer-specific venue.

 

The renderings showed the stadium only from the ready-to-build site at the confluence of the Ohio and Licking rivers, although FC Cincinnati officials also continued to discuss locations in Cincinnati's Oakley and West End neighborhoods.

 

"Our preference is to be in Cincinnati," FC Cincinnati President Jeff Berding told a group of season-ticket holders on Monday.

 

However, he added, "we have to win the bid."

 

Cont

I think the ownership group is relying on their crack reporting to get all eyes off public money and their West End aspirations at a CPS location. Now they can keep their eyes on the prize while the media and the public chew on and argue over their red herring. If that's what they really are trying to do, the PR stunt worked.

Also, this little nugget is in this piece toward the end:

 

"FC Cincinnati has not officially talked to the city of Newport, Fromme said. It's believed the club has not launched a lobbying effort with Kentucky politicians like it has in Ohio. "

 

 

Also, this little nugget is in this piece toward the end:

 

"FC Cincinnati has not officially talked to the city of Newport, Fromme said. It's believed the club has not launched a lobbying effort with Kentucky politicians like it has in Ohio. "

That seems small, maybe the county or even the State or maybe nobody. Ky has no tier 1 professional sports teams.

Just hoping the MLS selects FC Cincy, both locations are solid.

I wonder if Newport or the state of Kentucky will try to get them to re-brand in exchange for tax dollars. FC Newport? FC Kentucky (though FCK might be a bit too crude of an acronym)?

Since the same stadium design will be plopped down in any location, if we have detailed renderings, we can see if the thing was custom-made for the tight West End location. 

Since the same stadium design will be plopped down in any location, if we have detailed renderings, we can see if the thing was custom-made for the tight West End location.

 

Can anybody estimate the width of the proposed design? This "OTR Street View" makes it look like it has plenty of "breathing room" with a row of trees between the stadium and the street... but I can't imagine that'd be the case at the Stargel site (~405 ft wide between John St and Central Ave):

Very crudely using google maps measuring tool and eyeballing the approximate location of the stadium at the Ovation site:

 

Width: ~450 ft

Length: ~650 ft

 

It seems as if it would fit in Stargel, bounded by John and Central Ave. Potentially the buildings to the north on Wade would have to be bought and destroyed

I wonder if Newport or the state of Kentucky will try to get them to re-brand in exchange for tax dollars. FC Newport? FC Kentucky (though FCK might be a bit too crude of an acronym)?

LOL, they might try if the $$$ was huge but I don't see it happening.

Maybe moving to Kentucky wouldn't cause FCC to lose many fans, but rebranding to "FC Kentucky" (or something like that) certainly would.

Aside from TIF funds, was there any mention of where additional funding might come from? And how much? Stadium naming rights only fetch a few million a year (LA Galaxy has best deal with $7m/year from StubHub Center). http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/11/18/san-jose-earthquakes-sign-naming-rights-deal-as-stadium-cost-soars/

What if both Ohio and Kentucky (and Cincinnati and Newport) say, "no thanks, you're not getting any tax breaks"? Do the owners spend their own money to build the stadium or do they threaten to take the team to another city? Would it really be the worst thing in the world for them to remain a USL team and continue playing at Nippert?

^That's not how it works. They applied to open an MLS franchise in Cincinnati. That can't be changed. Where in the region it is could potentially change before they win a bid, but they aren't going to be able to simply pick up and move to another city. If this bid doesn't get one of the next 4 MLS spots, that's it for the ownership group.

 

They likely can't make it work without ANY tax breaks. Also, why would any municipality say no to all types of tax breaks? That's a bad decision.

 

If they don't win the MLS bid, they likely stay in the USL at Nippert as long as it is financially viable. I think it would be a huge missed opportunity to not get into MLS. The USL will never provide the level of national/international attention MLS brings.

What if both Ohio and Kentucky (and Cincinnati and Newport) say, "no thanks, you're not getting any tax breaks"? Do the owners spend their own money to build the stadium or do they threaten to take the team to another city? Would it really be the worst thing in the world for them to remain a USL team and continue playing at Nippert?

Nada, the entire MLS deal has come about due to amazing attendance, branding, ownership. If they get the bid then a stadium gets done IMHO.

I wonder if Newport or the state of Kentucky will try to get them to re-brand in exchange for tax dollars. FC Newport? FC Kentucky (though FCK might be a bit too crude of an acronym)?

 

Kaiserslautern in Germany's Bundesliga already owns that. And a badass logo it is.

 

 

 

 

Very crudely using google maps measuring tool and eyeballing the approximate location of the stadium at the Ovation site:

 

Width: ~450 ft

Length: ~650 ft

 

It seems as if it would fit in Stargel, bounded by John and Central Ave. Potentially the buildings to the north on Wade would have to be bought and destroyed

 

At second thought, it is in their best interest -- if their true intent is to build on the Taft site -- to send out a decoy stadium proposal that can't quite fit. 

 

As I have posted already, they can build a 20,000 seat stadium in that footprint if the stadium has seats on all four sides (not the open-ended design we just got).  Doing that many seats on just three sides will require higher grandstands which would necessitate taking 1-2 lanes of both John and Central Ave. 

 

The bigger question is if they come after Taft High School itself, which is only about 12 years old and try to do a land swap.  That's only one property owner to deal with as opposed to the Jehovah's Witnesses and half dozen characters who own the lots along Wade St.  One of those lots just changed hands last month with an offer just hours after it listed.  So that's either a shrewd move by someone who has every intention of holding out or an agent of the Lindners. 

 

Also, 1 or 2 of the lots (going by memory) along the south side of Wade are owned by the much-maligned West End Renaissance Village. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bigger question is if they come after Taft High School itself, which is only about 12 years old and try to do a land swap.

 

That would be interesting. Why not build a new school on the land reserved for future phases of City West that was used as a streetcar construction staging area?

The sale of 419 Wade was just recorded to "CF Urban LLC", that's Cathy Frank, a Comey & Shepard realtor.  I know her! 

 

http://wedge.hcauditor.org/view/re/1340001025800/2016/summary

 

The bigger question is if they come after Taft High School itself, which is only about 12 years old and try to do a land swap.

 

That would be interesting. Why not build a new school on the land reserved for future phases of City West that was used as a streetcar construction staging area?

 

Because the existing school is an asset that may last for decades more... That would be some conspicuous waste that would be hard to stomach for many.  That would be a bad move politically.

That and it would be moving one terribly planned school and likely building another terribly planned school on land that really should be developed in an urban manner. Taft already screwed up that plan with its ridiculous lawns and setbacks but that's said and done. No need to give them any ideas of furthering this mistake.

^Pretty much all of the new schools CPS built with the $1 billion bond issue are already embarrassing.  Stroll one block south of Taft and you see its equally sad contemporary, Hays-Porter Elementary.  Takes up a huge amount of space with a useless lawn.  Drive around town and all of the 10 year-old schools already look a little worn-out. 

Don't even get me started...that school is a disgrace to urban planning.

^Pretty much all of the new schools CPS built with the $1 billion bond issue are already embarrassing.  Stroll one block south of Taft and you see its equally sad contemporary, Hays-Porter Elementary.  Takes up a huge amount of space with a useless lawn.  Drive around town and all of the 10 year-old schools already look a little worn-out.

Dayam, I don't follow it much. Shameful.

<a href="https://twitter.com/jwilliamscincy/status/874783912169545728">Jason Williams tweeted</a> that the West End site would require acquiring "30+ properties"... at first I took that mean they were looking at something other than the Stargel site (since I assumed most that the Stargel site had been consolidated into a single property)... but looking at CAGIS, the north part of the Stargel site is comprised of individual properties (all owned by Cincinnati Public Schools) north of Derrick Turnbow Av.

 

For example here is 419 David St which is a little slice of the end zone:

http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/1340001029100/2015/aerial_imagery

 

In addition to CPS, there are 5 other owners of properties in the block the south side of Wade:

-425+ Wade: Central Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

-423 Wade: RJCPII LLC (purchased in 2015 by LLC based in Maryland)

-421 Wade: Historic Limited Liability (purchased 2009)

-419 Wade: CF Urban LLC (purchased 5/31/2017)

-413-415 Wade: West End Renaissance Village (purchased 2010)

 

So, if the stadium could be contained within the Wade/John/Central, then it would require working with at most 6 owners (who collectively own 30+ parcels). Regarding Taft, I don't think CPS or the FCC ownership would be interested in replacing Taft (that would mean finding $ to rebuild school elsewhere... and schools aren't cheap). The limiting factor with this site is the *width*, not the height of the block... so adding that extra height wouldn't help the site much.

 

 

The advantage of tearing down the school would be getting frontage on Ezzard Charles, which has direct access to I-75.  Also, there appears to be room to move Central Ave. between Ezzard Charles and 15th to abut the District 1 headquarters and that gets the site plenty of width without having to tear down anything other than the school.  The Jehovah's Witnesses don't get rich.   

 

I used the footprint of Red Bull Arena to create this (because I haven't been able to stop thinking about it... I live a block away).

 

The opportunity to redevelop and infill this park of Central Parkway would be incredible. The major fatality in this is the Lighthouse Church/Theater. In my wildest of dreams, the façade would be deconstructed and reconstructed as an entry gate. I have thought about but haven't explored concepts that rotate the stadium 90 degrees or justify the stadium all the way to Central Parkway. This would terminate Central Ave. which I do not think is ideal, but that would alleviate John Street and the Laurel Homes development from an imposing building with a minimal setback, as is shown in the graphic.

 

It's a shame we have to work within the bounds of reality and can't go full Sim City on this. ?

 

If I had that ability, I'd rotate it 90 degrees from Chas' rendering above and place it right at the SW corner of Liberty & Central Parkway, going south to Wade Street (which you might have to push slightly further south, taking the Jehovah's Witness properties). We would have to relocate the Cincinnati Ballet from that site, so they'd get a new facility elsewhere. A handful of historic buildings between Liberty and Wade would be lost as well, but quite frankly, those buildings are unlikely to ever be rehabbed due to the number of "missing teeth" on those blocks from previous demolitions and light industrial businesses that have moved into the area. This plan would eliminate Central Avenue between Wade and Liberty but would likely leave everything south of Wade intact, meaning that Taft HS and Stargel Stadium could remain. It would also put the stadium as close as possible to the northbound and southbound streetcar stops on Liberty Street.

One of the issues I see with this site is that I'm sure there will be height restrictions put on the surrounding plots of land. I would like Central Parkway to be redeveloped into high rise buildings at least as tall as the Monster building, which means that the upper floors will have a clear view into the stadium.

 

It would be a shame to be left with awkwardly short, less dense buildings along CP once we're done.

It's a shame we have to work within the bounds of reality and can't go full Sim City on this. ?

 

If I had that ability, I'd rotate it 90 degrees from Chas' rendering above and place it right at the SW corner of Liberty & Central Parkway, going south to Wade Street (which you might have to push slightly further south, taking the Jehovah's Witness properties). We would have to relocate the Cincinnati Ballet from that site, so they'd get a new facility elsewhere. A handful of historic buildings between Liberty and Wade would be lost as well, but quite frankly, those buildings are unlikely to ever be rehabbed due to the number of "missing teeth" on those blocks from previous demolitions and light industrial businesses that have moved into the area. This plan would eliminate Central Avenue between Wade and Liberty but would likely leave everything south of Wade intact, meaning that Taft HS and Stargel Stadium could remain. It would also put the stadium as close as possible to the northbound and southbound streetcar stops on Liberty Street.

 

Ask and ye shall receive. Though... I do not feel that those historic buildings are so hopeless. Yes, it's more of a situation of "remaining teeth" than "missing teeth"... but the amount of demo required with this proposal makes me uncomfortable. I mean... I am not comfortable about the demo of the Lighthouse Church/Theater in the first option I drew, either.

 

If this were a real scenario, it becomes a question: would you rather save one piece of unique historic architecture or 10 pieces of common historic buildings. Also... in all scenarios, Revelations Baptist Church is untouched... that is one rad, goofy piece of architecture.

 

^NO THANKS

I like the Central Parkway & Liberty plan better than the one that bends Central Avenue significantly and replaces Stargel Stadium.

 

Here's the other problem... in FCC's renderings, they show the stadium at a prominent street corner. If you put if where Stargel Stadium is located, that's not a prominent street corner. No one driving down Central Parkway, Liberty, or Ezzard Charles will see the stadium. You'd have to drive down Central Ave. or John Street (both are essentially side streets) to see it.

 

Central Parkway & Liberty is a much more prominent corner with tens of thousands of vehicles passing by each day.

^^^No way. That's razing 11 historic buildings (more than a "handful")(among other buildings) and obliterating the street grid. Also Travis I disagree with your assessment of the future of that area- the garages and such are much less likely to stand the test of time than the historic buildings. People will want to infill around those again someday.

Let's also not forget that if the Liberty Street narrowing moves forward, that gives 20 more feet on the south side of Liberty for the stadium to occupy.

Let's also not forget that if the Liberty Street narrowing moves forward, that gives 20 more feet on the south side of Liberty for the stadium to occupy.

 

This is true, but if a stadium is built there, there might be some big time opposition to narrowing the street! (Moreso than today)

The corner also houses a very viable business (Tri-State Building Supplies), a cultural institution (Ballet training center), and a pretty significant concentration of historic brewery structures and lagering cellars 40' deep under a significant portion of the site.

The corner also houses a very viable business (Tri-State Building Supplies), a cultural institution (Ballet training center), and a pretty significant concentration of historic brewery structures and lagering cellars 40' deep under a significant portion of the site.

 

And in the first scheme the Metropolitan Theater >> State Theater >> Lighthouse Worship Center would be at risk. It no longer looks like this, but it was, at one time, a stunner.

 

 

BUT: I just messed around with my first scheme... the theater's lobby and façade could be saved, its center line used as the center line of the field. Imagine: Midfield centered on the façade of this building. From the façade and west for 15 feet box seats would extend down into the bowl that they excavate for the field. Inside the restored lobby, a stadium bar/restaurant. On the second floor and roof, press and photographers. Above, the pillow-y contemporary canopy protecting this piece of architecture from further harsh damage from the environment.

 

I'm really uncomfortable with demolishing any more of the West End. What other community has suffered the amount of loss that the West End has? Having a stadium in the middle of the neighborhood is not going to help existing residents- in fact they will suffer from all of the normal negative side effects of stadiums. Traffic on game days, an unused dead zone on non-game days, drunks, noise. I just don't think it's an appropriate location, and I think the Lindners demolishing housing, theatres, schools, and churches in the West End while they own estates in Indian Hill large enough to fit the stadium is disgusting.

 

I think a good spot would be the old IRS building in Covington. If there's not enough room right on that site and its parking lot, you could include some of the fast food disaster across the street. That would probably require some road reconfiguration, but it's easily accessible from 75/71, and it'd be walkable from the Banks streetcar stop.

^Well one of my sources (I have two or three of them) said that the official design (which I have not seen and no doubt differs from what has been made public) won't tear down anything.  That might be a story, but as I have pointed out, it is technically possible to build a 25,000 seat stadium without tearing anything down. 

 

So the team apparently drew 30k+ to Nippert on a Wednesday night...if they build a new stadium with 20-25k seats, tickets will get very expensive under these circumstances. 

 

 

We'll never play the Crew for the first time ever again. This was a special event. You want sell outs, but you want to get as many people in the stadium at the same time. Anything over 30k seems too ambitious, honestly.

Last night's game was awesome, great crowd, great atmosphere and we beat the MLS team nearest us. Couldn't have asked for a better outcome. I was hoping for a tie or just a close game to show we can hang with the big boys, but a win was just great. I hope the MLS commissioner was watching...

 

Because we can fit over 35,000 in Nippert for special games, and because it is already a proven successful location, I was reminded again last night that while all this potential new stadium talk can be fun, we really don't need a new stadium. The current situation is great, and I really hope the MLS could figure out something that involves long term deals with UC to make it work financially.

Last night's game was awesome, great crowd, great atmosphere and we beat the MLS team nearest us. Couldn't have asked for a better outcome. I was hoping for a tie or just a close game to show we can hang with the big boys, but a win was just great. I hope the MLS commissioner was watching...

 

Because we can fit over 35,000 in Nippert for special games, and because it is already a proven successful location, I was reminded again last night that while all this potential new stadium talk can be fun, we really don't need a new stadium. The current situation is great, and I really hope the MLS could figure out something that involves long term deals with UC to make it work financially.

 

It's either new stadium or no MLS bottom line, it has been now said straight from the owners mouth. We should move on from Nippert.

So with the site plan that Chas put together, we would lose this group of buildings but that would be basically it, besides of course Taft High School Field? 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x8841b3ffea81ede1:0xdeaaf8e7da76af32!2m19!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m13!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/taft%2Bhigh%2Bschool%2Bcincinnati/@39.1090205,-84.5226241,3a,75y,357.24h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sX_HQMEmtk3Qsct8fgelNBg*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x8841b3ffea81ede1:0xdeaaf8e7da76af32!5staft+high+school+cincinnati+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sX_HQMEmtk3Qsct8fgelNBg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSmP-VhsDUAhWHjz4KHfIMCTEQpx8IiAEwDQ

 

That wouldn't be so bad, but then of course you would want some agreements to keep the stadium in use as much as possible year round.  And the way they have it designed, I don't think they would have a retractable roof on this to double as an event center for NCAA Tourney games or winter concerts, etc.  So, this wouldn't be able to replace the form and functions of a US Bank at all. 

And the way they have it designed, I don't think they would have a retractable roof on this to double as an event center for NCAA Tourney games or winter concerts, etc.  So, this wouldn't be able to replace the form and functions of a US Bank at all.

 

They addressed this question at Monday's season ticket holders meeting. After declaring the current US Bank arena site as too small for a soccer stadium, they stated that looking at a multi-purpose venue design would not meet the EOY deadline (and timeline if they get the bid) that MLS has.

Up next, Chicago Fire of the MLS at Nippert (June 28?)!

So with the site plan that Chas put together, we would lose this group of buildings but that would be basically it, besides of course Taft High School Field? 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x8841b3ffea81ede1:0xdeaaf8e7da76af32!2m19!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m13!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/taft%2Bhigh%2Bschool%2Bcincinnati/@39.1090205,-84.5226241,3a,75y,357.24h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sX_HQMEmtk3Qsct8fgelNBg*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x8841b3ffea81ede1:0xdeaaf8e7da76af32!5staft+high+school+cincinnati+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sX_HQMEmtk3Qsct8fgelNBg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSmP-VhsDUAhWHjz4KHfIMCTEQpx8IiAEwDQ

 

That wouldn't be so bad, but then of course you would want some agreements to keep the stadium in use as much as possible year round.  And the way they have it designed, I don't think they would have a retractable roof on this to double as an event center for NCAA Tourney games or winter concerts, etc.  So, this wouldn't be able to replace the form and functions of a US Bank at all. 

 

You have to figure that they have 1-2 soccer games a week at the stadium primarily April - Sept. HS Soccer and football overlap for a month. They can certainly use it for HS playoff games easily, and probably regular season games because it is easy to schedule around FC games. In addition, they will likely have 5-6 nights of the week they can set it up for concerts and shows if they choose. My only question on that matter is do they prefer to go there or Riverbend in the summers, or even US Bank if the arena is cheaper to rent and accommodate them. I do not see too many concerts there, there are just too many venues (although, they could expand the Jazz festival to cover PBS and the soccer stadium too, imagine how great that would be)

 

 

I have a hard time believing that a MLS team would let a public high school use its stadium regularly ... other than maybe a few payoff games per year as a sign of goodwill towards the community.

What is the mysteriously incomplete part of the City West/Laurel Homes development doing? I know it was used for Streetcar staging ground. If FCC goes with the above scheme 1 and Stargel is demolished. And if CPS cannot use an MLS stadium for their regular games and practices. Would it then make sense to build a CPS stadium on the unfinished part of City West/Laurel Homes lot bound by Ezzard Charles, Cutter, Clark, and John? A facility with track and field and maybe amenities for Hays Porter Elementary as well? That would make a nice campus between those CPS facilities.

I have a hard time believing that a MLS team would let a public high school use its stadium regularly ... other than maybe a few payoff games per year as a sign of goodwill towards the community.

 

Not necessarily. If it is a chance for revenue for the team and ownership, even if the revenue is just ancillary such as concessions, parking, sponsorship dollars (more events mean more people see the ads) they will

What is the mysteriously incomplete part of the City West/Laurel Homes development doing? I know it was used for Streetcar staging ground. If FCC goes with the above scheme 1 and Stargel is demolished. And if CPS cannot use an MLS stadium for their regular games and practices. Would it then make sense to build a CPS stadium on the unfinished part of City West/Laurel Homes lot bound by Ezzard Charles, Cutter, Clark, and John? A facility with track and field and maybe amenities for Hays Porter Elementary as well? That would make a nice campus between those CPS facilities.

 

Of course that makes a lot of sense, but it is unclear how that land is deeded.  City West was funded by the HUD HOPE VI program, which began in the late 1980s, and saw its budget cut under George W. Bush around 2003.  So everything that was built in the mid-2000s was from funding allocated a decade earlier.  They never finished it because of the funding cut.  I don't know if those funds shifted over to Section 8 or what. 

 

The Hope VI program was what provided the funds to tear down a lot of the hi-rise public housing around the country and replaced it with attached row houses.  They did renovate that one section of the 1930s Laurel Court public housing at the corner of Liberty and Linn and it actually looks better than a lot of City West.  Also, there are random empty lots around the "finished" sections of City West, not just the big completely untouched block.